Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,613
11,933
popsicledeath_sl said:
I don't think they were making a documentary about the truth or seeking to re-try Avery or even seeking to manipulate/withhold the so-called truth to drum up public outcry hoping to get paid. They were making a documentary about injustice and shenanigans in our legal system... so they showed stuff that featured injustice and shenanigans in our legal system. At its core I don't think the actual documentary is nearly as bias or interesting as people are making it out to be. In fact, I find it's ironic that the type of public outcry of overwhelming support for Avery is cringe-worthy to the film-makers since it was exactly that sort of court-of-public-opinion BS and it's power to undermine what is fair and just that they were in part seeking to highlight in the first place.

I think the reaction they were seeking was more that we need to really take a closer look at what we call justice in this country, not people signing petitions for Thanks Obama to pardon him.

In fact, I don't think the film makers or even Avery's defense lawyers really give a shit if Avery spends the rest of his life in jail, only that he gets as fair trial. And the trial didn't seem fair. So they documented the ways in which it wasn't. I dunno, I find all the talk of motive and bias in the documentary to be pretty stupid and missing the point entirely. But, people gonna people.
Click to expand...
thats an interesting way to put it.
I found it incredibly biased. I mentioned back in those old posts when it first came out, and midway. it was so one sided, I felt there must clearly be more to this story then they are telling us.

But lets say, the filmmakers, as you say felt he didnt get a fair trial. For us, we see it entirely one sided. For the people of Wisconson however, there was a massive level of bias that needed to be cut through. we had those earlier links, and the reddit thread of the local news, etc. "I knew for a fact he was guilty, and you just blew my mind" to have any chance of getting through to the people that matter in Wisconson, it needed to be biased, and really shake what they took for granted.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
popsicledeath_sl said:
No. I think OJ was found Not Guilty by a jury of his peers. I do however believe he committed the crimes he was accused of.
Click to expand...
OMG you're so dangerous to society!!! That man went to trial and was declared innocent. How dare you lack the critical thinking skills to feel that he's guilty!!

By the way, you do think he was guilty, you're just too much of a pussy to say it
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
popsicledeath_sl said:
Woah! That's some heavy evidence! Is that quote from when Kratz himself was testifying under oath or when he was blatantly lying to the public and/or jurors during his statements?

Again, this isn't evidence, nor even good conjecture. It's a proven liar, a diagnosed narcissist and slime-ball rapist who has been proven to spin tall tales and at best not deter questionable investigative pratices if not orchestrate them... and when there is plenty of solid evidence to discuss that may point to Avery's culpability you're going to quote some sensationalism by Kratz and tell us it's suspicious and interesting.

The only thing suspicious in that Kratz statement is anything that fucker says that isn't taken with a hypertension inducing grain of salt.

To repeat: the fact you're latching onto the flimsiest bullshit and taking the most sensationalized quotes and running with them again takes us back to the points that you lack critical thinking skills, seem to be an emotionally driven asshole with a judge-jury-executioner complex, and the kind of person that led to the Avery trial being such a glaring example of how the presumption of innocence is so easily shit upon and it being terrifying to ever be accused of anything with your so-called peers having control over your fate.
Click to expand...
The phone calls are documented, retard. How was Kratz involved in faking phone calls??? And I'm still the one lacking critical thinking skills?
popsicledeath_sl said:
To repeat: the fact you're latching onto the flimsiest bullshit and taking the most sensationalized quotes and running with them again takes us back to the points that you lack critical thinking skills, seem to be an emotionally driven asshole with a judge-jury-executioner complex, and the kind of person that led to the Avery trial being such a glaring example of how the presumption of innocence is so easily shit upon and it being terrifying to ever be accused of anything with your so-called peers having control over your fate.
Click to expand...
you're such a fucking clueless cunt. Judge Jury and Executioner??? I'm sensational, you say? lol
Maybe read the stuff I write more than once, because with those comprehension skills, you might be an Avery
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
Palum_sl said:
I haven't watched it, but I've followed the thread. From the accounts provided it seems like Avery could (did?) kill her, the cops were incompetent and had nothing concrete or fucked it up and so they planted evidence to secure a conviction to make a lawsuit go away? That about right?
Click to expand...
Yes, but popsicledeath doesn't like when you colour outside the lines, so just stick to the narrative of the documentary plz
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
Caliane_sl said:
It was so one sided, I felt there must clearly be more to this story then they are telling us.
Click to expand...
This is partly what I felt at the end too. I mean, sure the prosecutors didn't want to be involved, but we also saw next to zero footage of the prosecutors questioning anybody on the stand that put the defence in a bad light. I refuse to believe that.
And no reasonable human being could look at the evidence thatwasincluded in the doc and come away with a guilty verdict. Therehadto be more we didn't see
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
I don't need to watch a Michael Moore documentary to know it is biased and has half truths in it. This show is no different. It is made by a for profit company that lives and dies from "ratings".

Even if they took the exact opposite stance I would still complain. They are not giving out all of the facts and are purposely misleading the public to generate buzz.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
a_skeleton_03_sl said:
I don't need to watch a Michael Moore documentary to know it is biased and has half truths in it. This show is no different. It is made by a for profit company that lives and dies from "ratings".

Even if they took the exact opposite stance I would still complain. They are not giving out all of the facts and are purposely misleading the public to generate buzz.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the documentary does indeed show some pretty blatant police misconduct and evidence tampering that went unpunished and helped lead to the conviction. For that alone, it's worth a watch (or a pirating, if you prefer)
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
Jive Turkey_sl said:
To be fair, the documentary does indeed show some pretty blatant police misconduct and evidence tampering that went unpunished and helped lead to the conviction. For that alone, it's worth a watch (or a pirating, if you prefer)
Click to expand...
Oh I know they screwed up and did bad things. I might watch it eventually but I have no interest in a one sided discussion of something that needs two sides. Key aspects not talked about because it doesn't fit with the narrative.

If you make a documentary present both sides, be biased, but both sides need to be told. You don't need your "enemy" to give an interview if they don't want to. Just give a good full synopsis of the other side at least.
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
3,831
4,377
You should probably watch the documentary since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
The documentary showed both sides of the trial. It showed the prosecutions questioning of the witnesses. The only thing that it doesn't show is the interviews with prosecutors/police because they all rejected the offer to participate.

Really have no idea how you think it's entirely 1 sided:

I'm going to guess that 99.99% of the people posting in this thread never heard of this trial before this documentary and have zero bias.

I'm going to guess that about 70% of the people think he's probably guilty (steven I mean. the nephew nobody thinks is guilty, only Jive retard thinks had anything to do with it)

despite that fact that most of us think he was involved in the murder in some way, 99.99% of the people (again except Jive) believes that he was railroaded, wasn't afforded due process or had a presumption of innocence or fair trial, at a minimum, and that there was serious corruption/conflict of interest/planting evidence/completely setup/framed at the worst.

If it was so one sided then how would most of us conclude that he was probably guilty or involved in some way?

You should ignore all those articles about "what the documentary didn't show you! damning evidence!" all quoting prosecutor rapist. A: He's a fucking rapist. B: He, like you, hasn't seen the documentary either! 90% of the "damning evidence the documentary doesn't tell you!" IS IN THE DOCUMENTARY. He's a moron. Keep seeing these claims about 90% of the damning evidence not shown, yet 90% of their list of things were shown. There's basically nothing substantial that was excluded from the documentary, and in fact the documentary shows some pretty "damning" evidence that even the jury wasn't shown or allowed to know about.

This wasn't the point of the documentary. as other's have more eloquently stated, the point of the documentary was to show that he didn't receive a fair trial. That's biased sure, against the prosecution. The film makers succeeded. Most everyone in the country believes this man didn't receive a fair trial. The only person who think's his trial was fair was the prosecutor who was fired for corruption and rape.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,741
9,162
Sylas_sl said:
A: He's a fucking rapist.
Click to expand...
A: learn the definition of rape
B: This has nothing to do with the case. If you simpletons are going to bitch and moan about logical fallacies, you need to try a little harder not to make some of your own

I won't comment on the rest of that drooling mess of a post
 
Fifey

Fifey

Trakanon Raider
2,898
962
1. Being a CIS white male is the definition of rape.

2. I don't care about if he actually is guilty or not, the documentary to me is frightening due to the way the cops handled the whole thing without any consequences.
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
3,831
4,377
Merriam Webster: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent.

A prosecutor who threatens to drop cases against wife beaters unless the battered wife agrees to sleep with him is a threat of injury in exchange for unlawful sexual activity/sexual intercourse. Though technically I suppose it's between rape and sexual assault:

illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority

"If you don't suck my dick i'm going to drop the case against your husband and release him from prison, what do you think he is going to do to you for turning him in?"
 
Caal

Caal

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,588
66
Jive Turkey_sl said:
OMG you're so dangerous to society!!! That man went to trial and was declared innocent. How dare you lack the critical thinking skills to feel that he's guilty!!

By the way, you do think he was guilty, you're just too much of a pussy to say it
Click to expand...
Are you drunk?
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
3,831
4,377
Nah he's just a retard.

Like the 2 defendants. kinda rustles my jimmies when people in this thread kept referencing the two as "near" or "borderline" retarded. No, they are full retards.

Three requirements to be diagnosed as retarded:

An IQ score of approximately 70 or below (72 & 69)
A determination of deficits in adaptive behavior
Origins of the disability prior to age 18. (IE not due to head injury or other mental trauma later in life)

Both of the defendants are literally retarded. No need to beat around the bush or call it borderline. Fucking Koko the sign language gorilla is smarter than either one of them (avg iq score of 80, has scored between 70 and 95 on IQ tests), fuck she probably has a more extensive vocabulary than both of them put together.
 
Chukzombi

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,147
214,434
I watched 9 of the 10 parts today. Will finish the last part tomorrow. I too think Steven was innocent and the county railroaded him. But on the other hand I find it completely unbelievable that the county wanted him so bad as to kill some innocent girl in order to frame Steven. Like that dipshit said earlier, it would be easier to kill Steven than frame him
 
Adebisi

Adebisi

Clump of Cells
<Silver Donator>
27,751
32,859
I'd love to see these unbiased documentaries a_skeleton_03 has been watching
 
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,613
11,933
Maester Chuk_sl said:
I watched 9 of the 10 parts today. Will finish the last part tomorrow. I too think Steven was innocent and the county railroaded him. But on the other hand I find it completely unbelievable that the county wanted him so bad as to kill some innocent girl in order to frame Steven. Like that dipshit said earlier, it would be easier to kill Steven than frame him
Click to expand...
Absolutely no one is saying the cops killed her, except the rapist prosecutor making up a strawman.

well, actually, that could be one of the elements of the doc, which is biased. Where DID that claim come from exactly? The doc makes the defenses position clear as, "the cops framed Steven, with evidence from her murder." No actual claims of who did murder her, other then 3rd party phone calls, and suspicious activity from roommates.
Kratz claims, the defense is proposing the cops murdered her. something never suggested in the doc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.